Reply to the Hindu

Your editorial – collapse of governance (29.08.08) is topical and incisive. The government has not properly utilized its democratic and secular tools in handling the issue. Instead it yields into the same insular vote bank politics as we witnessed in the eve of the Mandir Masjid politics, for which we paid a lot and are paying still. No more drops of blood to be shed at the expense of any types of religious politics or vote bank politics. We the secular and democratic people constitute the majority in India. We have to invoke our constitutional obligations with iron hand, which strictly stand for democracy and secular credentials, to reinstate the normalcy in Kashmir. And raising Pakistan’s flags and chanting slogans in favour of Pakistan is totally intolerable and unacceptable in line with our constitution. Our constitution guarantees not only our fundamental rights, but also our fundamental duties to keep our system intact. Why does the government then hesitate to act?

Reply to Mr. Rajeev Shukla

This has reference to Safe Exit (Front Foot by Rajeev Shukla) 23.08.08. This is the bitter truth. The dream of a good democratic government in Pakistan seems to be a still born. Pakistan’s democracy has been fragile from very beginning, so extremism has always a chance to mushroom. Poverty plays the lead role for that. And power mongers will do the supporting roles. The extremists will work in full swing not only in Pakistan, but on the neighboring border too. Even if terrorists will not achieve their goals, terrorism is the great menace in the century. That will further increase tension between India and Pakistan. The ordinary people in both countries wish to live in harmony. Democracy is not a mere word that is debated only in theory. It gives a great experience by practicing it. For that we need the flawless sincerity from both sides. People often have a negative approach or a pre-determined stand when they discuss a long standing conflict. If both the parties of a dispute are sincerely determined to stand for an amicable solution, there will be a good atmosphere from which a good result will emerge out. It is time the people have to awaken to the sense of that kind of thought. Killing each other at the behest of leaders does not mean democracy. Democracy stands for the people, not for the leaders. We wasted sixty two years to learn good lessons from it. Do we need to bequeath those bad lessons to our posterity, too. No, an emphatic NO forever. If the Berlin wall could rest under an epitaph, why can’t we do away with the barbed wire fencing?

Mahmud Darwish

Poetry expresses the most profound feelings of a people. That was what the concept of General Anwar Sadat. When Uri Avnery quotes these lines for Mahmud Darwish in his latest article- Palestine’s national poet (21.08.08), and it comes from a well known and dispassionate Israeli writer, his obituarial lines deeply touch the reader. Darwish was one of the greatest poets in the world. Only could Darwish term the Arab-Israeli conflict as “a struggle between two memories”. The phrase preserves humanity for both the confronting nations. It evokes nostalgia for both. It does not echo any shrieks of gun or missiles. Because he understood the feelings of his friends and foes. He equates the existence of his with theirs. He delves into the impact of the losses both had suffered so far. Only can a beautiful mind deliver such a great and mellifluous phrase. Such poets and writers leave a perennial vacuum, which no one can fill. I salute him. And a few lines for him:



Record !

You are a great poet

Of not the Arab world

But of the entire world

JOHN

Just putting a wedding ring on the finger

Or a gold chain on the neck is not a married life;

Heart has to meet the heart to melt in one soul;

Now touch her heart and step on to a happy & long married life.